Microsoft Expands Windows CE's "Shared Source" Program

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1012-996272.html?tag=fd_top">http://news.com.com/2100-1012-996272.html?tag=fd_top</a><br /><br />"As part of its effort to deal with the threat of open-source software, Microsoft plans to let device makers modify more of the source code of its specialized Windows CE operating system. But some say the company's licensing terms could kill interest in the plan."<br /><br />Here is the kicker though, and what some feel would kill interest in the plan. "When the manufacturer makes changes for differentiating products, it has a six-month period to exclusively market devices with versions of Windows CE exhibiting these changes. After the period ends, Microsoft gains a royalty-free license to the technology, which allows any other developer to use them. Hitachi has already participated in this aspect of the program. The company developed changes to the user interface. Ideally, the original developer will be able to differentiate itself from the competition by half a year."<br /><br />I'm not really sure what everyone is up in arms about. Open Source software changes have to be shared with the community under the GPL. MS is just applying that methodology to Windows CE. It seems to me Microsoft wants to make sure that if any changes that are made that can benefit the platform at large versus just one OEM's device or application, they want to get that into the next version.

[Pony99CA]

I thought about the similarities to the GPL, too. However, the one big difference is that Microsoft isn't giving the Windows CE source away free, right? So what happens? A company has to pay for Windows CE source, then invests more of their money into development. After six months, they have to give the code they invested in to Microsoft for free, giving Microsoft a chance to make more money.

If the Windows CE source were GPL, that's fine. They got the code for free, so having to give changes back for free seems fair. Microsoft will get money for the CE source, get free development, and be able to profit from that free development. That doesn't seem fair.

Steve

[Janak Parekh]

If the Windows CE source were GPL, that's fine. They got the code for free, so having to give changes back for free seems fair. Microsoft will get money for the CE source, get free development, and be able to profit from that free development. That doesn't seem fair.
I don't know if it's a matter of fairness or not. However, your point is correct -- shared source has very little to do with the GPL. The GPL enforces mandatory public release of source code. Shared Source enforces release to Microsoft. Two very different beasts.

I don't see anything wrong per se about it; most open-source advocates are only up in arms because of the terminology -- shared implies some sort of openness, which this isn't, really.

--janak

[Bob Anderson]

Hey, it's America... capitalism reigns supreme.

MSFT developed Win CE, they let you look at it (for a fee) and if you think you can make it "better" MSFT wants a shot to use your ideas. Seems fair enough to me. I guarantee that the money they are making off of this program in no way offsets the total $'s spent investing in the platform to begin with. (Last time I checked the MOBILITY group at MSFT wasn't adding anything near the hundreds of millions Office and Windows did.)

If you don't like the deal, look elsewhere...

[billb]

Hey, it's America... capitalism reigns supreme.

If you don't like the deal, look elsewhere...

Bob, I completely agree with your sentiment.

The problems is that I believe that most companies will look elsewhere and that Win CE is not properly positioned against Linux:
a. it's too expensive on several levels
b. it's not customizable enough
c. now MS says I can't make proprietary source-level changes and keep them proprietary which is one potential reason for going to CE vs. Linux in the first place
d. the hardware requirements are often too steep vs. linux given that MS often mandates a reference design which can close a market to competitively priced components
e. OEM's still feel like they got screwed by MS in the 80's/90's paying very high OEM fees in exchange for unfair OEM contracts (read: monopoly). If CE sales will pass Windows sales in terms of volume than MS will need to do more to make the OEMs feel like they aren't getting screwed again.

[sponge]

If you don't like the deal, look elsewhere...

Where else are you going to look for Windows CE source?

This deal is all win for MS, so unless your partnered with MS, you don't have too much of an incentive to sign up. Now if the fee were minimal, if anything (ie to keep random people from picking up the source) it would be far more fair. But right now, I suspect most people will build on top of the OS, instead of having to give their code back to MS.

[Ed Hansberry]

If you don't like the deal, look elsewhere...

Where else are you going to look for Windows CE source?

Open Source - Linux embedded. I agree with Bob here. This is MS's product. In an effort to garner more share, they are opening up the source to their product they have spent millions, hundreds of millions and even billions in the case of Windows over the past few decades, to allow enhancement and improvement. In return, MS has the option to get that back from you to incorporate into the product. That can actually help the developer. If someone takes Windows CE 4.2 and makes improvements, MS may put that back into Windows CE 4.3 or CE 5 and that means the developer doesn't have to pull the OS apart again and re-incorporate the fix/enhancement.

And as Bob said, if you don't like it, don't do it. You can develop your solution as a custom addon or use another product entirely. Embedded Linux is a choice as are the embedded solutions from Wind River Systems.

[daS]

I'm not really sure what everyone is up in arms about. Open Source software changes have to be shared with the community under the GPL. MS is just applying that methodology to Windows CE.
The difference is: you do the work - Microsoft gets the money and doesn't share it with you. Plus, to add insult to injury, after 6 months Microsoft gets to charge you along with everyone else to use the very code that you wrote! 8O

It's one thing to freely share code. (And I'm not saying that open source is better than a commercial business model.) It's quite another thing for a company to create license terms that lets them charge for other people's work - which must be given to them for free. :?

Of course there's nothing wrong with Microsoft setting up the license terms in a way that benefits them the most. I just doubt that very many companies will take them up on this offer. :roll:

[Scott R]

Unless I'm mistaken, this is very similar to how PalmSource has always done business. I'm surprised that the article made no mention of that (nor anyone here). Palm has always touted this as an advantage to them as they can take advantage of letting their licencees try out new things. If they like what they see, they integrate it into their OS. I don't know how long the licensee gets exclusive use of it, but I beleive that Palm gets to take the fruits of the labor for free. Looks like MS is copying Palm again. :p Of course, won't this move them away from the "advantage" they've claimed whereby all of their devices were built on a rigid set of standard features? Personally I think this is a good thing. Hopefully we'll see less cookie-cutter PPCs come out and some more original designs. Of course, the biggest issues are still with the OS, IMO.

Scott

[ShivShanks]

Hey, it's America... capitalism reigns supreme.

If you don't like the deal, look elsewhere...

Bob, I completely agree with your sentiment.

The problems is that I believe that most companies will look elsewhere and that Win CE is not properly positioned against Linux:
a. it's too expensive on several levels


Really? Can you give an explanation how? Just because something like embedded Linux is free doesn't mean its less expensive. The cost of the base OS for your device is nowhere near the highest cost in your BOM. For example Linux cannot hold a candle to the excellent development environment available for WinCE (Visual Studio). So if you can more easily develop software for WinCE at much lesser cost (total s/w dev cost) vs. Linux then does that make Linux still cheaper? People are just too naive and taken in by Open Source and Free Software. The whole idea behind these isn't cost and free as in beer. Its about freedom and choice and that may or may not have anything to do with cost. Lets take an example of two guys who want to own dogs. One gets a free puppy that takes a lot of time to manage and otherwise more cost to upkeep. The other buys a puppy which requires less work and cost on his part to upkeep. So who in the long run had the cheaper deal?


b. it's not customizable enough


And how is that? After what MS has announced now. can you explain, from a technical point of view, what is it that can be done with Linux that cannot be done with WinCE?


c. now MS says I can't make proprietary source-level changes and keep them proprietary which is one potential reason for going to CE vs. Linux in the first place


Now hold on. What makes you think Linux allows you to do that? On the contrary with Linux if the code you are mucking around with is GPLed it specifically forbids you to keep your changes propietary. At least in WinCEs case you do get 6 months to keep it for yourself. With Linux if you are linking against or using/modifying GPLed code, tough luck, you will have to share it. And trust me most code in Linux is GPLed. Now if you are talking about *BSD then that's different. BSD style licenses do allow one to do what you are talking about. Actually *I consider* BSD to be a more Free license than GPL. I find it funny that people here aren't cribbing "Hey the GPL is unfair, all the hard work I've put in I've got to give it away for free". Yeah and when it comes to MS its unfair when you give it away. Well the reason you give it away in the first place is that you want others to have it not MS. You are giving it away to the larger WinCE community. If you don't wanna do that then stay away from the source.


d. the hardware requirements are often too steep vs. linux given that MS often mandates a reference design which can close a market to competitively priced components


I really think you have a lot of misconceptions about WinCE. How much do you really know about using WinCE for h/w devices? Reference designs are only required if you want to get the branded name for that particular profile. That is if you want to call your device PocketPC or SmartPhone etc. If you don't care about that then you are free to do just about anything in the world that you choose. And BTW reference designs are also a good thing from a consumer point of view in the sense that you have some minimal gaurantess about the device when you buy it. And if you don't want that then you can certainly go outside the reference design.


e. OEM's still feel like they got screwed by MS in the 80's/90's paying very high OEM fees in exchange for unfair OEM contracts (read: monopoly). If CE sales will pass Windows sales in terms of volume than MS will need to do more to make the OEMs feel like they aren't getting screwed again.

And from where did this piece of insight come? How do you know OEM's are getting screwed? I don't see where the OEMs are complaining that they are getting screwed. Do you have any idea what the OEMs pay for WinCE? If you don't then please stay off that topic. You should really take a look at the financial numbers that MS is quoting for their mobility division. So its like they are screwing all these OEMs and yet making no money? And besides the cost of the base OS may not be the biggest cost for the device manufacturer.

[cyclwestks]

I'm glad you mentioned the link to "academic". I didn't realized until visiting their site that it included Board of Education, of which I was happen to be a member of. I knew their had to be some benefit of listening to all those irate parents. As a hobby (plus just learning) developer, this just may make it affordable.

[kfluet]

You guys have a good little debate going on.

I would like to inject one point that I think is extremely important: Microsoft's undeniable monopoly on the desktop means that Microsoft should be expected to behave differently from everyone else, and not just with regard to the desktop OS. They are a special case.

The "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" arguement doesn't hold when you are talking about desktops and similarly I believe that it doesn't hold when you are talking about WindowsCE, or at least it won't very soon with .NET CF allowing Microsoft to leverage their desktop monopoly into the handheld space.

[Pony99CA]

c. now MS says I can't make proprietary source-level changes and keep them proprietary which is one potential reason for going to CE vs. Linux in the first place

Now hold on. What makes you think Linux allows you to do that? On the contrary with Linux if the code you are mucking around with is GPLed it specifically forbids you to keep your changes propietary. At least in WinCEs case you do get 6 months to keep it for yourself.

Ummmm, that was billb's point. People might have chosen to develop for Windows CE over Linux because they could keep their changes proprietary.

You can certainly argue that people may not choose which platforms to develop on like that, but at least don't attack a straw man.


e. OEM's still feel like they got screwed by MS in the 80's/90's paying very high OEM fees in exchange for unfair OEM contracts (read: monopoly). If CE sales will pass Windows sales in terms of volume than MS will need to do more to make the OEMs feel like they aren't getting screwed again.
And from where did this piece of insight come? How do you know OEM's are getting screwed? I don't see where the OEMs are complaining that they are getting screwed. Do you have any idea what the OEMs pay for WinCE? If you don't then please stay off that topic. You should really take a look at the financial numbers that MS is quoting for their mobility division.
You really should learn to read better. Billb was talking about Windows OEMs (hence the 80s/90s comment) being screwed. If you don't think they were, maybe you missed the antitrust trial. :roll:

Billb's point is that they're going to feel (emphasis on "going") that they're getting screwed again on Windows CE if they have to give their code to Microsoft without any compensation. That's similar to having to pay Microsoft for a Windows license even if your hardware shipped without Windows -- in both cases, Microsoft gets something of value for free.

Steve

[billb]

c. now MS says I can't make proprietary source-level changes and keep them proprietary which is one potential reason for going to CE vs. Linux in the first place

Now hold on. What makes you think Linux allows you to do that? On the contrary with Linux if the code you are mucking around with is GPLed it specifically forbids you to keep your changes propietary. At least in WinCEs case you do get 6 months to keep it for yourself.

Ummmm, that was billb's point. People might have chosen to develop for Windows CE over Linux because they could keep their changes proprietary.

You can certainly argue that people may not choose which platforms to develop on like that, but at least don't attack a straw man.


e. OEM's still feel like they got screwed by MS in the 80's/90's paying very high OEM fees in exchange for unfair OEM contracts (read: monopoly). If CE sales will pass Windows sales in terms of volume than MS will need to do more to make the OEMs feel like they aren't getting screwed again.
And from where did this piece of insight come? How do you know OEM's are getting screwed? I don't see where the OEMs are complaining that they are getting screwed. Do you have any idea what the OEMs pay for WinCE? If you don't then please stay off that topic. You should really take a look at the financial numbers that MS is quoting for their mobility division.
You really should learn to read better. Billb was talking about Windows OEMs (hence the 80s/90s comment) being screwed. If you don't think they were, maybe you missed the antitrust trial.

Billb's point is that they're going to feel (emphasis on "going") that they're getting screwed again on Windows CE if they have to give their code to Microsoft without any compensation. That's similar to having to pay Microsoft for a Windows license even if your hardware shipped without Windows -- in both cases, Microsoft gets something of value for free.

Steve

Steve, very well said all around. You are now my official spokesman! :lol: :lol:

Don't get me wrong, I actually like Windows CE. It's one of the most ambitous projects I've ever seen in the software world. However I still believe my original gripes of 2 days ago are valid.

The cost issue is also a real concern. I'm working on a secret project (sorry no details allowed) that is being developed in Linux. We really wanted to use WinCE but we felt that the development time would be about 50-100% longer and the licensing costs back to MS would eat away at our software margin (we're not a hardware company with an expensive BOM to hide behind).

-BB

[daS]

The cost issue is also a real concern. I'm working on a secret project (sorry no details allowed) that is being developed in Linux. We really wanted to use WinCE but we felt that the development time would be about 50-100% longer and the licensing costs back to MS would eat away at our software margin (we're not a hardware company with an expensive BOM to hide behind).
I'm surprised about the first point. Unless you have a lot of young developers that programmed Unix/Linux in school recently, Windows CE is generally considered easier to develop for. The tools are the same as for desktop Windows and the APIs are a subset. Also, if you have any UI work, the Visual tools generally speed up the process.

As for the second point - that of course depends on volumes. If the volume is of sales is going to be low, then the cost of the license would be less important than the development costs. Of course your last statement really has me curious: If you're not a hardware company - why would you even have any issue with licensing Windows CE? Only the OEM needs a WinCE license. You only need the development tools.